SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
I didn't realize that bolding certain words to draw peoples' attention to them (that I've been doing for years) was setting some sort of negative tone.
Maybe you're too emotionally involved in this? Perhaps?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
No more babies being delivered at NY hospital
- Thread starter Kenny
- Start date
Maybe you're too emotionally involved in this? Perhaps?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Hmm, maybe he thought I needed to provide evidence. Anything that will help others to understand:
Fact check: Are COVID-19 vaccines causing deaths?
For the TLDR: Does the vaccine cause deaths? Answer: It doesn't look like it.
Fact check: Are COVID-19 vaccines causing deaths?
For the TLDR: Does the vaccine cause deaths? Answer: It doesn't look like it.
Alienistic
Anti-conformity
When you cite a pharma shill which provides no evidence but his opinion and calling VAERS a site for dumpster diving... it is not rational thinking. It is adapting the opinion of Gorski.
Is it indirectly mocking anyone, including any doctors who genuinely filed an accurate report. It is directly taking a legitimate reporting agency and trying to make it look stupid, inaccurate. If you wish to adapt to Gorski’s tactics thinking you win something, so be it.
Nobody ever said, including myself that everything reported here is 100% accurate or 100% evidence. Yet it would seem very illogical that all of the thousands of reports are some giant conspiracy hoax attacking poor, innocent pharma. I’ll always steer towards and defend the common folk, rather than trillion dollar industries and their shills. If you wish the opposite, so be it.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Uh huh. Right.
Your errors in using VAERS has been explained to you. People are encouraged to report to it. They are not discouraged As a result the vast majority of reports will almost certainly be junk. They still check them out. What makes VAERS useful is that if there is something wrong with a vaccine a pattern will arise because of a specific problem. What is the specific problem found? None is to be found yet that I am aware of.
By the way, just because you do not understand the evidence that has been presented does not mean that there was "no evidence".
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Bold and caps are. It's an internet curtesy thing. You can tell it sparks nerves when its not dropped as quickly as it was pointed out.
Anyway. I let you know what I meant by my original comment to Penguin.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
They are a bit shouty. Though if a person keeps ignoring the same point ad nauseum they are sometimes justified.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
I've explained my point. I didn't see any repeats. Not sure why people have to repeat their points, though. Seems more they want me to change my points for every time they rephrase it. Not sure why that is, though.
Edit.
Speaking of threads in general on these topics.
Then why are you arguing against them?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You kept making the same poor claims that did not help your stance on vaccinations. It amounted to repeating an obvious mistake. And in your case ad nauseum.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
What else did you want me to say with this?
It should have been dropped and just moved on after my point and Skeptic's clarification. Pointing it out doesn't mean I want to have a full discussion over this. Sheesh.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
The point wasn't about the stats.
At this point, I'm not sure you had a point at all.
Edit: but good to know that you weren't disputing the stats.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
I did. It should have been dropped after Skeptic responded. Whether you believe me or not is your thing, but the subject would have been dropped if you two didn't want to add to it.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
@9-10ths_Penguin
@Subduction Zone
The subject should have been dropped at #585. No need to add on to what's already been concluded.
@Subduction Zone
The subject should have been dropped at #585. No need to add on to what's already been concluded.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Oh okay, so whatever the CDC says about their own reporting site is wrong then, right?
Come on now.
I'm sorry you want VAERS to be something it isn't, just because you want it to be.
"VAERS is not designed to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event. A report to VAERS does not mean the vaccine caused the event.”
No, it isn’t.
It’s simply stating a fact. A fact you don’t like, but a fact nonetheless.
"VAERS is not designed to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event. A report to VAERS does not mean the vaccine caused the event.”
I’m sorry but you’re wrong and you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Try reading about VAERS on the CDC’s own site, rather than just going with whatever you want to believe.
It is inaccurate and the information hasn’t even been vetted.
"VAERS is not designed to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event. A report to VAERS does not mean the vaccine caused the event.”
Correlation isn’t causation. Apparently, the CDC is aware of that, even if you aren’t.
It sounds like maybe you need to go take a statistics course.
Did you know that a few years back, a doctor wanted to test the VAERS reporting system, so he filed a complaint that his flu shot caused him to turn into the Incredible Hulk. And guess what? He got a payout. The CDC contacted him and asked if they could remove his complaint from their database. So, had they not called, his complaint about a vaccine turning him into the Incredible Hulk would still be there, and you’d (or somebody else) probably be citing it.
PolitiFact - CDC accepts all manner of reported vaccination effects--even symptoms of the Hulk
Some self-reported CDC data fueling the anti-vaccination movement
Alienistic
Anti-conformity
Attachments
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Not a convincing argument. In fact, I'd say it's the last vestige of a person who is out of anything valid to say. This isn't Facebook, dude.
Please stop citing unverified sources as factual data. Thanks.
"VAERS is not designed to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event. A report to VAERS does not mean the vaccine caused the event.”
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
I use it in the manner I've explained.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
People sometimes need to repeat their point when it is not being addressed.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
I use it in the manner I've explained.
I don't read bold that much. Depends on where it is in the paragraph. I don't red and bold red at all.
It's nothing personal